In relation to the programme’s general approach, the ECU noted that the issue of ill- health arising from poor diet was well understood to be a matter of public concern, and that ultra-processed food accounted for a significant proportion of the UK diet.  As concerns about a possible link with ill-health have been expressed by the World Health Organisation (among others), the ECU considered that the topic was a matter of genuine public interest and that it was germane in a programme of this kind to feature the concerns of experts and document evidence about the effects of high consumption levels. 

In relation to the specific criticisms of the programme, the ECU found as follows.

Professor Millstone’s analysis concluded that about 90% of studies which were “reassuring” as to the health effects of aspartame had been funded by chemical corporations which manufacture and sell aspartame, whereas 75% of the independently-funded studies found an association between aspartame and harm.  Notwithstanding the range of scientific opinion on aspartame, the ECU considered the finding of a correlation between research funding and results was relevant information for viewers.  This point of complaint was not upheld.

In relation to emulsifiers, the programme featured the most recent results of an epidemiological study led by  Dr Mathilde Touvier which had not been peer-reviewed or published at the time of transmission.  In the ECU’s view it would have been wrong to present these results as having established a causal link between emulsifiers and certain diseases, and it accepted that the programme’s first reference to it (as “exclusive new evidence linking food additives to cancer”) would have come close to doing so if taken on its own.  In the body of the programme, however, Dr Touvier spoke of “a significant association” rather than a causal relationship, and the commentary said “Dr Touvier’s findings don’t prove aspartame causes cancer”.  The ECU considered that it was made sufficiently clear to viewers that the results were as yet unpublished and not peer-reviewed, and that they derived from an observational study open the criticism that it depends on self-reported data which may be unreliable.  This point of complaint was not upheld.

In relation to the COT, the programme said “More than half the members of the Committee on Toxicology have recent links to the food and chemicals industries and last year it disagreed with the European regulator’s proposal to cut the safe level of BPA, criticising the regulator’s approach to the evidence. That means the safe level in the UK is 20,000 times higher than in Europe”.  The ECU noted that the COT is not responsible for setting safety standards but is asked to advise the UK Food Standards Agency on the scientific evidence in relation to toxicity and risk.  However, it considered the programme implied that the COT’s reservations about the methodology of the EFSA’s scientific review were responsible for a failure by the FSA to modify safe levels for BPA, and that the opinion of the COT should be judged by viewers in the light of the links of its members to the food and chemicals industries.  The ECU also noted that the COT’s reservations about the EFSA’s review were shared by two bodies, which the EFSA is obliged to consult: the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which noted “insufficient evidence of  immune disorders in humans”, and Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which concluded that EFSA’s methodology was “not suitable for predicting adverse health effects in humans”.  Even if the EMA’s dissent were discounted on the basis that its expertise is in medicine, not food packaging, the ECU concluded that the BfR’s position (in the absence of any argument that it had been coloured by conflict of interest) established the possibility that disagreement with the EFSA’s assessment could rest solely on scientific grounds, and that viewers might have seen the objections of the COT and any risk to the UK public arising from them in a different light if they had been made aware of this.  This point of complaint was upheld.

The statement that the judgments of the COT rarely served to protect public health was made by one of the contributors to the programme (Professor Millstone) and was followed by statements from the Chair of the COT and from the FSA rebutting the charge of influenced by vested interests.  In the ECU’s view the disagreement was presented with due impartiality, and this point of complaint was not upheld.

The trial involving identical twins was relevant to the topic of the programme principally because, after two weeks, the twin on the ultra-processed diet showed increases in lipid and blood sugar levels and weight gain.  While it would have been misleading to present this result as establishing a causal relationship between ultra-processed food and damage to health, the programme did not make such a claim, and said only that it was “in line with a growing body of evidence” of a causal connection.  As to the mothers at the children’s tea-party, the ECU accepted that their expressions of concern about children’s consumption of ultra-processed food were the kind of comments any mothers might make when responding to the possible risks of ill-health for their children, rather than evidence-based judgements.  In the context, however, the ECU thought it unlikely that viewers would have looked to these mothers for an informed scientific opinion, or that they would have been misled by what was said.  These points of complaint were not upheld.

Partly upheld